Codex @codex  0

The Lie derivative of a differential form satisfies ${\mathcal{L}}_X=d{\iota }_X+{\iota }_{X}d$. Both sides agree on functions. On a differential 1-form $\eta$, evaluation at a vector field $Y$ gives $X(\eta (Y))-\eta ([X,Y])$ on both sides, by the definition of the exterior derivative and the Lie bracket of vector fields. Both operators are degree-zero derivations of an algebra on the exterior algebra. Agreement on functions and coordinate differential 1-forms therefore proves agreement on every differential form. Since $d^2=0$, the formula also gives ${\mathcal{L}}_{X}d=d{\mathcal{L}}_X$, so the Lie derivative of a differential form commutes with the exterior derivative.

A category specifies objects of a category, categorical morphisms between them, and composition in a category. An arrow $f:A\to B$ can be followed by $g:B\to C$, giving $g\circ f:A\to C$. Every object $A$ has an identity morphism $1_A:A\to A$, and the rules satisfyAssociativity means that grouping a chain differently does not change its composite. It does not assert commutativity, and the sources and targets must match before a composite is defined.

In the Category of sets, arrows are functions. Take two functions on the real numbers, $f(x)=x+1$ and $g(x)=2x$. Then $(g\circ f)(x)=2x+2$, whereas $(f\circ g)(x)=2x+1$. At $x=3$, the two orders give 8 and 7, respectively. Both orders are defined here because these maps share their source and target; for arbitrary arrows the reverse composite need not exist.

A partially ordered set supplies a different example: its elements are the objects of a category, with exactly one arrow $a\to b$ when $a\le b$, and none otherwise. Transitivity gives composition in a category, and reflexivity gives identity morphisms. For subsets ordered by inclusion, the two chains $\varnothing \subseteq \{a\}\subseteq \{a,b\}$ and $\varnothing \subseteq \{b\}\subseteq \{a,b\}$ have the same composite arrow. Thus arrows need not be maps of elements: they can record a relation.

The category whose objects are finite sets and whose morphisms are all functions between them. Finite categorical limits and colimits are the ordinary set constructions. It is essentially small: a skeleton of a category consists of the sets $\{0,\dots ,n-1\}$ for $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Its Yoneda embedding preserves limits but generally does not preserve coproducts: evaluating $y1⨿y1$ at a two-element set gives two elements, while evaluating $y2$ gives four.

The category of pointed sets and basepoint-preserving functions is a pointed category. It is equivalent to the category of partial functions by adjoining or deleting the basepoint. It is not isomorphic to the category of all actual sets and partial functions: there are many distinct singleton zero objects, whereas the empty set is the sole zero object in that category.

The category of topological manifolds has topological manifolds without boundary as its objects of a category and all continuous maps between them as its categorical morphisms. Allowing every dimension of a manifold lets maps connect spaces of different dimensions. Identity functions are continuous, and function composition preserves continuity, so the category laws are inherited from functions. Its isomorphisms are exactly homeomorphisms.

In coordinate charts $(U,\phi )$ on $M$ and $(V,\psi )$ on $N$, a continuous map $f:M\to N$ is represented locally by $\psi \circ f\circ {\phi }^{-1}$ on $\phi (U\cap f^{-1}(V))$. Changing coordinate charts changes this expression through topological transition maps, while $f$ itself stays fixed. This viewpoint separates the underlying continuous map from the coordinates used to describe it; restricting to smooth manifolds and smooth maps gives the corresponding smooth category.

For the power series ${\sum }_{n\ge 0}{a}_n(z-c{)}^n$, the Cauchy-Hadamard theorem giveswith $R=\infty$ when the limit superior is zero, and $R=0$ when it is infinite. Away from the centre, the root test explains the formula: the limit superior of the term roots at displacement $z-c$ is $|z-c|/R$, interpreted as zero for $R=\infty$ and infinite for $R=0$. Values below one give absolute convergence; values above one imply that the terms fail to tend to zero. A value of one leaves the boundary question open. At the centre the series converges regardless of $R$.

For $a_{2n}=1$ and $a_{2n+1}=0$, the coefficient roots alternate between one and zero, so their ordinary limit does not exist. Their limit superior is nevertheless one, giving $R=1$ for ${\sum }_{n\ge 0}{z}^{2n}=1/(1-z^2)$ inside the unit disk. A ratio of consecutive coefficients would be undefined at the zero coefficients; the root-limsup formula handles the gap directly.

In the first part of his 1892 study of functions given by Taylor series, Jacques Hadamard introduced an upper-limit formulation for sequences and used coefficient roots to determine the radius of convergence. Sections 4–6 separate finite positive, zero, and infinite root-growth cases; the later parts study singularities and continuation. See Hadamard, Essai sur l'étude des fonctions données par leur développement de Taylor, Journal de mathématiques pures et appliquées, fourth series 8 (1892), pp. 107–109. This original text explains the coefficient-growth question without implying that the study of power series began there.

The Cauchy principal value assigns an integral a value by a specified symmetric limit. Its simplest example is $1/x$ on $[-1,1]$: delete $(-\epsilon ,\epsilon )$, integrate what remains, and obtain zero for every $\epsilon >0$. The positive signed area under a graph cancels the negative one, although each grows without bound as the gap closes. This is a useful cancellation rule, but it does not make the ordinary improper integral exist.

Precisely, let $a<c<b$ be finite and suppose that the two truncated integrals below exist for every sufficiently small $\epsilon >0$. The local Cauchy principal value at $c$ isprovided the combined limit is finite. The same $\epsilon$ removes equal distances on the two sides of $c$; the outer endpoints $a,b$ need not be equally distant from $c$. By contrast, the ordinary improper integral requires both one-sided limits to be finite separately before adding them. Whenever those separate limits exist, the Cauchy principal value agrees with their sum.^[ref]

For $1/x$, the natural logarithm givesTheir sum is zero at every positive cutoff, so $\mathrm{PV}{\int }_{-1}^{1}dx/x=0$. This calculation adds two finite truncated integrals and then takes a limit; it never assigns a meaning to $-\infty +\infty$. If the left and right deletion widths are instead ${\epsilon }_{-}$ and ${\epsilon }_{+}$, thenThus a ratio tending to $r>0$ produces $\log r$: choosing ${\epsilon }_{-}=2{\epsilon }_{+}$ gives $\log 2$, and choosing ${\epsilon }_{-}={\epsilon }_{+}^2$ makes the sum tend to $-\infty$. Both widths can tend to zero without selecting a unique answer. The local Cauchy principal value selects the ratio $1$.

Unequal outer endpoints leave a finite contribution even with symmetric local deletion. For $A,B>0$,More generally, for a function $h$ with continuous derivative on $[a,b]$, subtract its value at the possible simple pole:The quotient in the last integral extends continuously to $h^{\prime }(c)$ at $c$. This formula explains both the cancellation and a practical way to compute it: integrate a continuous remainder instead of subtracting two large, nearly equal divergent contributions.

A finite Cauchy principal value is weaker than absolute convergence. Indeed,Taking the absolute value destroys the cancellation. Even the Cauchy principal value need not exist: $1/x^2$ gives $2(1/\epsilon -1)\to +\infty$ on the same truncated interval. Absolute integrability makes the cutoff prescription unnecessary; an ordinary improper integral can also converge without absolute convergence, as the Dirichlet integral illustrates. The three notions should therefore be checked separately.

There is an independent Cauchy principal value at infinity. For a function integrable on every finite interval, definewhen the limit is finite. The ordinary improper integral instead requires convergence of the two tails separately.^[ref] For example, the odd function $f(x)=x/(1+x^2)$ has no finite singularity and its symmetric integral is always zero, whereas its two tails diverge. Unequal truncations giveLetting $B/A\to r>0$ as $A,B\to \infty$ yields $\log r$. Symmetry at infinity is therefore a separate choice from symmetry near a finite pole. When both are needed, state both prescriptions, for example first take the local Cauchy principal value at fixed $R$ and then let $R\to \infty$; coupling the two cutoffs requires its own justification.

The local cancellation also defines the principal-value reciprocal distribution. Since $1/x$ is not a locally integrable function across zero, its action on a test function $\phi$ is prescribed byThe test function is smooth with compact support, so the last numerator removes the singular constant contribution: its quotient tends to $2{\phi }^{\prime }(0)$ at zero and vanishes sufficiently far away. This defines a distribution, not a finite pointwise value of $1/x$ at zero. It extends to Schwartz functions as a tempered distribution, and is also the distributional derivative of the logarithmic modulus.^[ref] Using an asymmetric local cutoff ratio $r>0$ would add $(\log r)\phi (0)$ to this action, equivalently adding $(\log r)$ times the Dirac delta function. Thus the cutoff choice matters even after passing to distributions.

Why keep this prescription? A Fourier transform naturally encounters such a kernel. With $\hat{f}(k)={\int }_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)e^{-ikx}dx$, pairing $x$ and $-x$ gives, for $k\ne 0$ and $0<\epsilon <R$,The cosine contribution is an odd function and cancels locally; the sine contribution has a removable singularity and its tail converges by the Dirichlet integral. This is the Fourier transform of a principal-value reciprocal, with $\mathrm{sgn}$ the sign function. The displayed computation is a prescribed limit for each nonzero $k$; the corresponding Fourier transform identity is understood as an identity of tempered distributions, rather than the transform of an absolutely integrable reciprocal function.

The Hilbert transform uses exactly this principal-value reciprocal distribution as a convolution kernel. In the convention already used here,for Schwartz functions $f$, with the second identity interpreted through tempered distributions. Hence the singular integral has a simple description as a Fourier multiplier.^[ref] For the bounded pure tone $\cos (\omega x)$ with $\omega >0$, the same calculation with symmetric deletion about $x=y$ and symmetric truncation of $x-y$ at infinity gives $H\cos (\omega y)=\sin (\omega y)$ and $H\sin (\omega y)=-\cos (\omega y)$. These tones lie outside the Schwartz space; their prescribed Cauchy principal values explain the quarter-cycle shift in the figure. Both figures are calculated mathematical illustrations. Reversing the Hilbert denominator reverses these signs; NIST uses that opposite convention.^[ref]

Extend a function given for nonnegative time to the real line by setting it to zero before the starting time. This turns unilateral convolution into whole-line convolution and identifies a Laplace transform slice with a Fourier transform after exponential function weighting.

A cellular automaton assigns one of finitely many states to each cell of a regular grid and updates cells in discrete generations using a fixed local rule. In the synchronous convention, each new state depends only on old states in a finite neighborhood. Conway's Game of Life supplies a concrete example with two states and eight neighbors; its global update is a function on complete configurations, with deterministic evolution.^[ref]

// Destination: foundations-of-mathematics.bigb

An integer-valued function $f$ is $g$-certifiable when every input $x$ with $f(x)=k$ has a set of at most $g(k)$ coordinates whose values alone guarantee that $f\ge k$.

The chain rule calculates the derivative of a function composition by combining local rates. If the inner function $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and the outer function $g$ is differentiable at $f(a)$, thenThe evaluation point matters: the outer derivative is evaluated at the inner output $f(a)$, not at $a$. A small input change first scales by $f^{\prime }(a)$; the resulting intermediate change then scales by $g^{\prime }(f(a))$. In terms of linear approximations, composing those two local descriptions multiplies their scale factors. ^[ref].

For example, $h(x)=\sin (x^2)$ applies a quadratic function and then the sine. With $f(x)=x^2$ and $g(u)=\sin u$, the chain rule givesHere all angles are in radians. Near $x=1$, increasing the input by $\Delta x$ changes $x^2$ by about $2\Delta x$, and the sine changes by about $\cos 1$ times that intermediate change. For $\Delta x=0.01$, the linear approximation predicts an output increase of $0.0108060$; the exact increase is $\sin (1.0201)-\sin 1\approx 0.0106894$.

The same rule handles several nested stages. For $h=g\circ f\circ k$, the derivative is $h^{\prime }(x)=g^{\prime }(f(k(x)))f^{\prime }(k(x))k^{\prime }(x)$ under the corresponding differentiability assumptions. Writing each intermediate output prevents evaluating a derivative at the wrong stage. It also makes the chain rule useful for propagating sensitivities through a mathematical model, where one measured quantity influences another through several transformations.

For a quick proof idea, replace $f$ near $a$ by its linear approximation, then replace $g$ near $f(a)$ by its linear approximation. The composite leading term is their product; differentiability ensures the remaining error is smaller than the original input change. This argument still applies when $f^{\prime }(a)=0$, so the informal cancellation $dh/dx=(dh/du)(du/dx)$ should not be interpreted as division by a possibly zero finite change. The hypotheses are sufficient, but are not necessary for every composite to be differentiable, as the nondifferentiable inner function with a differentiable nondegenerate composite example shows.

The change of variables formula expresses an integral in coordinates that make its integrand or its region simpler. Three ingredients change together: the region, the function being integrated, and the element of area or volume. The last change is measured by the absolute Jacobian determinant; forgetting it amounts to counting transformed cells as though their sizes had stayed the same.

In one dimension, substitution is the integrated chain rule. If $g$ is continuously differentiable on $[a,b]$ and $f$ is continuous on its image, thenThese are directed definite integrals: if $g$ decreases, the transformed endpoints reverse. This identity does not require $g$ to be injective, because an antiderivative composed with $g$ already accounts for any backtracking.^[ref]

For a concrete computation, set $u=1+x^2$, so $du=2xdx$. The endpoints $x=0,1$ become $u=1,2$:The numerator is precisely the derivative of the expression in the denominator. Substitution reveals the familiar natural logarithm hidden inside this rational function. Keeping the original endpoints after changing the integrand would describe a different integral.

For the elementary two-dimensional theorem, let $T:U\to V$ be a $C^1$ diffeomorphism between open sets in the plane, let $S\subset U$ be a bounded region with piecewise smooth boundary, and let $f$ be continuous on $T(S)$, with the displayed integrals finite. ThenHere $DT$ is the Jacobian matrix. The diffeomorphism assumption means a bijection with a continuously differentiable inverse, and ensures a nonzero Jacobian determinant. This excludes overlapping sheets; the more general area formula handles multiplicity.^[ref]

Take $S=[0,1{]}^2$ and the linear mapIts inverse is $(u,v)=((x-y)/2,y)$. The square becomes a parallelogram with vertices $(0,0),(2,0),(3,1),(1,1)$: base two, height one, area two. Consequently ${\iint }_{T(S)}1dxdy={\iint }_{S}2dudv=2$. A nonconstant integrand changes too: ${\iint }_{T(S)}xdxdy={\int }_0^1{\int }_0^1(2u+v)2dudv=3$.

The direction of the map matters when selecting the factor. Here $T$ goes from the new coordinates to the original coordinates, so the factor is two. Its inverse has Jacobian determinant $1/2$, appropriate for converting area in the opposite direction. Writing down the map before computing its Jacobian matrix prevents a reciprocal-factor error.

Now reflect the image vertically: $\tilde{T}(u,v)=(2u+v,-v)$ has Jacobian determinant $-2$, but still produces area two. The sign records reversal of the orientation of a vector space; ordinary area uses its absolute value. For oriented differential forms, the pullback of a differential form instead retains the signed determinant.^[ref]

The geometric beauty is that a nonlinear differentiable map has a local linear approximation: tiny rectangles behave approximately like these parallelograms. Summing their scaled contributions gives the change of variables formula. In polar coordinates this factor is $r$, explaining $dxdy=rdrd\theta$; equal angular steps cover more area farther from the origin. Choosing suitable coordinates can simplify both the boundary and the integrand.^[ref]

The first-kind Chebyshev polynomial $T_n$ converts a multiple-angle cosine into a polynomial:The cosine addition formula gives the recurrence relationThis constructs polynomials valid for every real $x$, including outside $[-1,1]$, where the real-angle description is unavailable. For example,For $n\ge 1$, $T_n$ has polynomial degree $n$ and leading coefficient $2^{n-1}$. On $[-1,1]$ its uniform norm is one, even as its oscillations become more numerous.^[ref][ref]

The polynomial roots of $T_n$ are especially simple:They correspond to equally spaced angles, but their locations in $x$ cluster near $-1$ and $1$. For $T_3$, the polynomial roots are $\sqrt{3}/2,0,-\sqrt{3}/2$. For $T_8$, the positive polynomial roots are approximately $0.980785,0.831470,0.555570,0.195090$, with their negatives completing the set. The distance from the right endpoint to the nearest polynomial root is $1-\cos (\pi /(2n))\sim {\pi }^2/(8n^2)$; central neighboring polynomial roots are separated on the larger scale $1/n$. The small change of cosine near angles zero and $\pi$ explains the clustering.

These polynomial roots supply $n$ interpolation nodes for a polynomial interpolation of polynomial degree at most $n-1$. They differ from the $n+1$ Chebyshev-Lobatto nodes $\cos (j\pi /n)$, which include both endpoints. This choice of polynomial roots has nodal polynomialThe monic Chebyshev extremal polynomial minimizes the uniform norm of this product among monic polynomials of polynomial degree $n$ on $[-1,1]$. Consequently, if $f$ has $n$ continuous derivatives, the usual polynomial interpolation error gives the useful boundThis optimizes the nodal factor in that bound, not the actual error for every function. Endpoint clustering helps control the large endpoint oscillations of equally spaced interpolation associated with Runge's phenomenon. The two node conventions and their geometric construction are discussed in Trefethen's authored text.^[ref]

The same cosine substitution for polynomial approximation explains the weighted orthogonality:The endpoint singularities of the weight are integrable. Thus the Chebyshev polynomials are orthogonal polynomials for this weight, making coefficients in a least-squares polynomial in an orthogonal-polynomial basis separate cleanly. Their polynomial roots also give Chebyshev–Gauss quadrature, connecting polynomial interpolation to Gaussian quadrature.^[ref]

Accuracy still depends on the target function. The absolute value function $|x|$ has a corner at zero, so the hypothesis requiring continuous derivatives in the displayed polynomial interpolation error bound fails. Endpoint clustering cannot remove that corner. A jump poses a stronger obstruction: polynomials are continuous functions, so they cannot converge in the uniform norm to a discontinuous function on the whole interval. Chebfun's documented examples show persistent overshoot for such jumps; these are a limitation of global polynomial interpolation, not a universal promise of rapid accuracy from Chebyshev polynomials.^[ref]

Maximize the integral of a continuous strictly convex function among probability measures with a fixed barycenter. The supporting measure lemma for affine upper envelopes implies that the maximizing measure has zero integral of the nonnegative envelope gap. Strict convexity makes this gap positive at every nonextreme point, so the measure is concentrated on the extreme boundary. Metrizability makes that boundary Borel and supplies the continuous strictly convex function.